Mario Laframboise

[Petitions, May 27th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present in the House a petition on behalf of the member for Manicouagan, who is convalescing.

This petition is signed by almost 2,000 residents of the North Shore, who are strongly opposed to the introduction of the infamous $24 airport tax. North Shore residents often need to use a plane, not just for economic reasons, but especially for essential services, often for health reasons. Understandably, taking the plane is not a luxury for those who live in remote areas.

North Shore residents and inhabitants of the riding of Manicouagan support the member for Manicouagan, who allowed me to table this petition in the House.

They are asking that Sept-Îles and Blanc-Sablon airports not be subject to the $24 tax.

[Boat Towing, May 27th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon, some 200 fishing boat and pleasure craft owners demonstrated at Cap-aux-Meules to denounce the coast guard's decision to contract out boat towing to the private sector. This essential service, which has been offered free of charge round the clock since 1982, made up 90% of the vessel trips made by the Magdalen Islands coast guard last year.

Will the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans commit to maintaining the free, 24 hour boat towing service provided by the Magdalen Islands coast guard?

[Committees of the House, May 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to address the guaranteed income supplement issue.

I want to stress the comments made by the hon. member for Champlain, who expended a great deal of time and effort in trying to help his fellow citizens, Quebec's elderly, so that they get their due.

Put simply, the issue can be summed up in one sentence: to get their due. Seniors in Quebec and Canada have worked all their lives to now get what they are owed. The fight led by the Bloc Quebecois on the GIS issue was simply to ensure that all men and women, all seniors who were entitled to it, would indeed get it.

We are once again here in this House to discuss a program that government members are trying to defend by saying “Yes, we are advertising, we are promoting this program”.

As for us, we have now moved on to the second stage, which is to obtain retroactivity. It is fine to say “Yes, we will give the guaranteed income supplement to seniors in Quebec and in Canada”, but the government must also repay these people the money to which they have been entitled for eight years and of which they have been deprived. So, the Bloc Quebecois has moved on to the second stage.

It is the seniors who are listening to us now who are entitled to this money, and they alone can judge. The Liberal members have just said that they have done everything.

How long has it been since seniors in Quebec and in Canada saw their old age pension increased? The cost of housing has shot up in recent months and in the past year, but the old age pension has stayed the same.

Seniors in Quebec and in Canada must therefore understand that it is up to them to pass judgment on the government, and they should not let it off lightly. In the end, all the government wants is to be able to point to nice budgets and wonderful surpluses so that it can get re-elected.

We on this side of the House are being accused of grandstanding, when in fact we have devoted much time and energy to trying to meet with Quebec's seniors and obviously attempting to do something to improve the lot of seniors in Canada..

We have invested all this time and energy—as the hon. member for Champlain so aptly said—not to grandstand but simply to ensure that Quebec's seniors receive their due.

Once again, I would point out that, unlike the Liberal Party of Canada, we have moved on to the second stage, which is to obtain full retroactivity for these people, in other words, everything owing them for the past eight years.

In the months to come, we will no doubt move on to the next stage, which is getting the old age pension indexed so that seniors can keep up with increases in the cost of housing.

[Mirabel Airport, May 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, everything that has been proposed by the federal government until now has fallen short of the mark. What is needed are tax incentives like those granted by the government of Quebec to put Mirabel solidly back on its feet.

Will the government finally decide to act and agree to measures similar to those taken by the government of Quebec to support the development of Mirabel?

[Mirabel Airport, May 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, everyone is pulling together to help ensure the survival of Mirabel airport, with the exception of the federal government, which is sitting on its hands.

Yet it is Ottawa that is responsible for this whole mess, and it is up to Ottawa to share the burden and make it possible to create an international free trade zone at Mirabel, like Quebec has done.

Does the federal government not feel that it has made enough blunders in Quebec, and that it must act?

[Business of the House, May 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have already quoted from La Presse , and I will now quickly read some more headlines and excerpts. From Le Devoir , “New anti-terrorism legislation likely to create a police state”. Another of its headlines read “Smacks of totalitarian society: Privacy Commissioner”. I have already quoted from the Journal de Montréal and now, from Quebec City's Le Soleil , “Echoes of totalitarianism; Privacy Commissioner feels Bill C-55 goes far beyond the anti-terrorism legislation”.

I would ask the hon. member how the men and women listening to us should perceive the role of the privacy commissioner.

[Business of the House, May 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of the parliamentary secretary, I am going to reread the heading from La Presse : “Privacy Commissioner Condemns Bill C-55”. It does not say “Supports Bill C-55”.

The privacy commissioner, who was appointed by the government, is the best qualified to tell Canadians and Quebecers whether their privacy is protected, and he is the one telling us that he condemns Bill C-55.

Now that he has given his fine explanations, can the parliamentary secretary tell us whether the government will amend Bill C-55 or simply withdraw it and prove the privacy commissioner right?

[Business of the House, May 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal member concluded his speech by saying that he wants to protect individual freedoms and privacy rights.

I will simply quote a text published in today's edition of La Presse , which is not necessarily a sovereignist newspaper, members will agree. The heading is “The Privacy Commissioner condemns Bill C-55”. The privacy commissioner is also not a sovereignist and he is definitely not a Bloc Quebecois member. The text goes on to say that “some practices are similar to those that exist in totalitarian states”.

This is an excerpt from a letter addressed by the commissioner to the government. I will quote part of it for the benefit of the Quebecers and Canadians who are listening. I continue reading the text:

Some measures including in the new anti-terrorist bill introduced by the Chrétien government are squarely patterned on those that exist in totalitarian states, according to privacy commissioner George Radwanski.

Mr. Radwanski condemns Ottawa's decision to include in Bill C-55 new provisions that would give the RCMP and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) unrestricted access to personal information from all Canadians travelling on domestic or international flights.

According to the commissioner, these “exceptional” measures go far beyond anti-terrorism and are in fact “a dramatic expansion of privacy-invasive police powers without explanation or justification as to its necessity”.

I am still reading the letter addressed to the government by the commissioner:

“The precedent set [by the new provisions] could open the door, in principle, to practices similar to those that exist in totalitarian societies where police routinely board trains or establish roadblocks to check identification papers in search of anyone of interest to the state”, said Mr. Radwanski in a written statement released yesterday.

It should be noted that these measures were not included in the first version of Bill C-42, which was suddenly scrapped, and that the commissioner feels that police forces might eventually ask the government for similar powers in the case of Canadians travelling by train, bus or rental car.

What does the Liberal member think of these comments by the privacy commissioner?

[Public Safety Act, May 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister realize that, while he remains unfazed by the highly negative comments from the privacy commissioner on Bill C-55, and passes on to the courts the responsibility for resolving this, certain of the rights of citizens involved in these military zones will remain suspended, in particular the right to institute civil proceedings?

Is this acceptable in a country where rights and freedoms are supposed to be properly protected?

[Public Safety Act, May 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister made a statement that was as unexpected as it was inappropriate, in connection with Bill C-55 on public safety.

He indicated that, should Bill C-55 be bad legislation, the courts will say so and it will be corrected.

Does the Prime Minister realize that it is totally irresponsible for the leader of a government to slough off his responsibilities right from the get go onto the courts?